Recently, a trial-lawyer backed campaign to weaken California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act followed through on its threat to file a ballot measure, desperately hoping California voters can be fooled into raising MICRA's limit on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. This latest maneuver by the plaintiffs' bar comes after years of rejection in the legislature and the courts on this issue. The proposed initiative would adjust the non-economic damages limit to reflect any increase in inflation since the law was enacted in 1975 and require an additional annual adjustment for inflation going forward, which would raise the current limit of $250,000 to approximately $1.1 million.
What trial lawyers don't seem to understand is that the legislature and the courts have continually rejected this proposed change because MICRA is good public policy that balances the need to compensate patients with the need to limit medical liability costs. As the fifth appellate district ruled in Stinnett v. Tam in 2011, agreeing with CJAC's amicus brief in the case, the $250,000 limit on non-economic damages is the "heart" of MICRA and it satisfies equal protection because it is rationally related to MICRA's purpose: to reduce the cost of medical malpractice litigation and help to make medical malpractice insurance premiums affordable.
